Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of M.P. vs Badri Prasad & Ors. on 18 April, 2022
Author: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Paliwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL
ON THE 18th OF APRIL, 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2288 of 1998
Between:-
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH.
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI CHANDRAPAL SINGH PARMAR - GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE )
AND
1. BADRI PRASAD, S/O MANMOHAN KURMI, AGED
ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O CHAKRADHA.
2. PRABHU S/O BADRI KURMI, AGED ABOUT 24
YEARS, R/O CHAKRADHA.
3. JANKARANI W/O BADRI KURMI, AGED ABOUT 44
YEARS, R/O CHAKRADHA.
ALL P.S. MADIYADO, TEHSIL HATTA, DISTRICT
DAMOH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MADAN SINGH - ADVOCATE )
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed the
following:
JUDGMENT
Appellant, State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of acquittal dated 05.05.1998 passed by the Special Judge, Damoh in S.T. No. 220/1997 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Badri Prasad Kurmi & Ors.) whereby the accused persons (respondents herein) have been acquitted from the offences of Section 498-A and 304-B of Indian Panel Code.
2. As per the prosecution story, Deepa Bai W/o Prabhu aged about 23 years, died due to burn injury. Her postmortem was conducted. In merg enquiry, it was found that she was being harassed and was subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws as their demand of motorcycle and Rs.20,000/- cash was not fulfilled, due to which she after pouring kerosene oil immolated herself. After 6-7 days of incident, on 30.06.1997, F.I.R. was registered in Police Station Madiyado, District Damoh against Badri Kurmi (father-in-law of the deceased) Janak Rani 2 (mother-in-law of the deceased) and Prabhu (husband of the deceased) for commission of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet against the respondents Badri Prasad, Prabhu and Janakrani was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, who in his turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
4. Accused persons were charge-sheeted for commission of offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC. They abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried.
5. In support of the case, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Govind (PW-1), Kallu (PW-2), Chetram (PW-3), Madanlal (PW-4), Puran (PW-5), Kamla Bai (PW-6), Komal (PW-7), Dr. S.K. Jain (PW-8), Mahesh Prasad Mishra (PW-9), Om Prakash Sharma (PW-10) and N.P. Bakade (PW-11). In defence, accused persons have examined Gopal (DW-1).
6. Learned Special Judge after hearing the parties and considering the prosecution witnesses as well as defence witness on record, acquitted the accused persons of the commission of offence under Section 304-B and 498A of IPC.
7. Learned Government Advocate has assailed the impugned judgment dated 05.05.1998 and has submitted that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of Madanlal (PW-4) and Kamla Bai (PW-6) and has committed grave error in acquiting the respondents/accused persons from commission of offence under Section 304-B and 498-A of IPC.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/accused persons by placing reliance on the judgment of Raman Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2009) 16 SCC 35, Hazarilal Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2009) 13 SCC 783 and State of M.P. Vs. Shiv Pujan Singh reported in 1994 II MPWN Note 34 has stated that prosecution has failed to produce clear and cogent evidence to show as to whether harassment was caused to the deceased for a particular reason, therefore, learned trial Court has not committed any error in not believing the evidence of Madan Lal (PW-4) and Kamla Bai (PW-6) and in acquitting the accused persons for the charges under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC. Learned counsel further contended that unless consistent cruelty or harassment is shown or proved no presumption can be raised against the accused persons. He further submitted that prosecution has failed to establish the 3 accusations against the respondents/accused persons, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents/accused persons. Appeal filed by the appellant/State has no merits, therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
9. I have heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused trial Court record.
10. In this case, Govind (PW-1) is the cousin of Madanlal (PW-4) and in his evidence, he has deposed that marriage of Deepa Bai was performed without any dowry. After marriage, Deepa Bai had come to her parents house for 04 to 06 times. She never made any complaint regarding any cruelty or harassment with her by her in-laws.
11. Same is the evidence of Kallu (PW-2). He has deposed that Deepa Bai was living very well in her in-laws house. Chetram (PW-3) is the real brother of Madanlal (PW-4). He has deposed that Deepa Bai was his niece. She has died of burn injury. Deepa never made any complaint about any harassment or cruelty by her in-laws in matrimonial house. He has also stated that the marriage of Deepa was performed without any dowry. He further stated that his brother Madanlal (PW-4) never informed him about demand of motorcycle and cash by Deepa Bai's in-laws. Komal (PW-7) is the real brother of Madanlal (PW-4). He has also deposed that Deepa Bai was living very well in her in-laws house and she never informed about any harassment, demand of dowry or cruelty by her in-laws. Thus, Govind (PW-
1), Kallu (PW-2), Chetram (PW-3) and Komal (PW-7) have not supported the prosecution story before the trial Court, they have been declared hostile. They have clearly denied the fact that accused persons/respondents were harassing Deepa Bai or she was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry.
12. Madanlal (PW-4) is the father of deceased Deepa Bai. He has made omnibus allegations deposing that his daughter Deepa Bai was married five years ago with Prabhu (respondent No.2). After marriage Deepa remained in her matrimonial house. Till completion of one year of marriage she lived well in her matrimonial house but, thereafter, her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband (respondents herein) started to demand Rs.20,000/- cash and a motorcycle from Deepa Bai. He further stated that aforesaid information was given to him by his 4 relatives. When he visited to his daughter, she had also informed him about the demand of Rs.20,000/- and a motorcycle by the accused persons and causing cruelty on non-fulfillment of demand. He further stated that he asked the respondents, that he cannot fulfill their demand and can fetch Deepa along with him. Thereafter, he brought Deepa alongwith him to his home, where Deepa remained with him at about six months. After six months, Deepa went back with Prabhu on the basis of assurance given by Chetram, Barelal, Govind, Komal and Kallu that she would not be subjected to cruelty. He stated that after three months of that incident, Badri caught hold Deepa with a bad intention. Deepa had informed him about the same. Thereafter, he again brought back his daughter to his home, and she remained with him for two years. Thereafter he through his son intimated the accused persons/respondents to fetch Deepa back to her matrimonial home, but they asked that they will not take her back from parents house. He himself had sent her back. He stated that respondent No.3 Prabhu's maternal uncle had taken full responsibility of Deepa due to which he did not make any complaint against the accused persons about demand of dowry. He further stated that after three days of Prabhu's maternal uncle assurance he sent back Deepa with Ramesh and Raju. After 11 days of sending his daughter back in matrimonial house a Police Constable had come to him and had informed that his daughter Deepa Bai has died. At this, he had gone to see her, where Deepa Bai was found dead in burnt condition. Kamla Bai (PW-6) mother of the deceased has also supported the evidence of her husband Madanlal (PW-4).
13. In his cross examination, Madanlal (PW-4) has admitted that Chetram, Pyarelal, Govind and Komal are his brothers and belongs to his family. Kalu is also the resident of his village and is of his caste. In para 15 of his cross-examination Madanlal (PW-4) has admitted that before death of his daughter, he never made any complaint about the demand of dowry against the accused persons. He has admitted Badkul, Advocate is the resident of his village, but he never informed him about the demand of dowry and cruelty being caused with his daughter by the accused persons. He has further stated that, he never advised his daughter to live separately from her in-laws due to ill treatment caused by her in-laws. He has admitted that in his Police Statement (Ex.D-1) there is no mention that he had ever 5 thought of intimating police about cruelty and harassment caused by accused persons in police. He has admitted that his daughter was not having any issue.
14. Kamla Bai (PW-6) in para -9 of her statement has clearly stated that Deepa Bai was not having any issue due to which she was not happy with her life. From the aforesaid admission of parents of the deceased that deceased was not having issue, even after five years of her marriage that was the greater cause of her grief, due to which, possibility of her committing suicide cannot be rule out.
15. Learned trial Court in para 15 of its judgment has held that possibility of committing suicide by Deepa Bai for not having any child even after five years of marriage cannot be ruled out.
16. In a case of cruelty and dowry death, direct evidence is required. It is the circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused persons which are to be taken into consideration for adjudicating upon the truthfulness or otherwise of the prosecution case.
17. In this case Madanlal (PW-4) and Kamla Bai (PW-6) for the very first time after the death of Deepa Bai have stated about the demand of Rs.20,000/- and a motor-cycle by the accused persons. They also alleged that once Deepa was caught hold by her father-in-law (respondent No.1) with a bad intention. They are not the eyewitnesses. Allegation of cruelty and demand of Rs.20,000/- and one motorcycle and outraging the modesty of the deceased Deepa Bai by her father-in- law have been made by the parents of the deceased for the very first time after the death of the deceased. Prior to that there had been no incident of demand of dowry as a consequence of marriage or outraging of modesty by father-in-law. Their evidence has been rightly disbelieved by the trial Court as if a married lady is tortured at her matrimonial home, immediately after marriage, the parents or near relatives of that lady would intervene and try to settle the dispute. In this case, witnesses Govind (PW-1), Kallu (PW-2) and Chetram (PW-3) who are the uncles of deceased have specifically stated that Deepa was comfortable in her matrimonial home and her marriage was performed without any dowry and Deepa never stated them about demand of motorcycle and Rs.20,000/- by the accused persons. In this case there is absolutely no evidence that prior to Deepa's death the witnesses 6 Madanlal (PW-4) and Kamla Bai (PW-6) or deceased Deepa Bai herself made any complaint against the respondents/accused persons or they attempted to settle the alleged dispute or made any attempt to fulfill the so called demand of dowry or informed anyone at the life time of Deepa Bai.
18. From the evidence of Kamla Bai (PW-6), it transpires that Deepa was not happy as she was not having a child even after the five years of marriage, therefore, taking of extreme step by Deepa under the frustration of not having any child cannot be ruled out.
19. The evidence of Madanlal (PW-4) and Kamla Bai (PW-6) is relatable to demand of Rs.20,000/- and motorcycle but did not find support from the evidence of Madanlal's own brother Chetram (PW-3) and witnesses Govind (PW-1), Kallu (PW-2) and Komal (PW-7). In such circumstance, finding recorded by learned trial Court that there was no question of demand of dowry. Except the oral evidence of Madanlal (PW-4) and Kamla Bai (PW-6) there is no material on record to show that as to how the deceased Deepa Bai was being harassed or subjected to cruelty by respondents/accused.
20. Hence, it is apparent that there is no material to substantiate that Deepa Bai was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry and due to that she committed suicide. There is also no evidence on record to show that soon before her death Deepa was subjected to cruelty or harassment. As far as the evidence of Madanlal (PW-4) and Kamla Bai (PW-6) is concerned, it is apparent that they have spoke about the dowry only because Deepa had committed suicide. Therefore, I am also of the view that learned trial Court had not committed any error in disbelieving the evidence of parents of the deceased. As such there is no material to show as to how the deceased Deepa Bai was being harassed or subjected to cruelty. Only on the basis of omnibus allegations about the demand of dowry after the death of deceased by her parents cannot be taken as truthful and trustworthy.
21. It is a settled position of law that, prosecution has to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Madanlal (PW-4) and Kamlabai (PW-6) have not stated about the specific demand by the respondents/accused persons. Their statement that respondent/accused persons had demanded Rs.20,000/- and one motorcycle in dowry is not worth reliance as they could not say about specific 7 demand, then it is apparent that the alleged demand was nothing but a suspicion raised by the parents of the deceased. If there had been any demand, just after marriage or in the lifetime of Deepa, they had to made complaint to Police or some respected members of Society, who could have called panchayat of society. In fact prosecution has not established that deceased was subjected to cruelty in consequence of their demand. No witness except Madanlal (PW-4) and Kamla Bai (PW-6) has stated that the deceased Deepa Bai remained in her parents house for resolution of any dispute relating to dowry demand with her husband or by her in- laws. No F.I.R. was lodged in her lifetime. Matter was never referred to any Panchayat. Chetram (PW-3) who is the brother of Madanlal (PW-4) and Govind (PW-1) have clearly stated that marriage was performed without dowry and Deepa was kept with comfort. They have specifically denied the allegation that the deceased Deepa Bai was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry. Learned trial Court has believed the testimony of these witnesses.
22. In this case, prosecution has not examined any witness from the neighborhood of the respondents/accused persons or residing near the house of the respondents/accused persons to explain discord, if any, between deceased Deepa and respondents/accused persons. In these circumstances, I am of the view that learned trial Court has not committed any error in holding that prosecution has failed to prove that soon before death, deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry demand and consequently she expired due to unnatural death. Therefore, in the light of the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the cases of Raman Kumar Vs. State of Punjab (Supra) and Hazarilal Vs. State of M.P. (Supra) the findings recorded by learned trial Court does not warrant interference by this Court.
23. After considering all the allegations made against the respondents/accused persons relating to demand of dowry, cruelty and harassment by the parents of deceased Deepa Bai, I am of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that Deepa Bai died of any cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry. Thus, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons of offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC.
824. Thus, no interference is required in the findings recorded by the learned trial court. Consequently, this appeal filed by the State against acquittal of the respondents/accused persons being devoid of merits, is dismissed.
(DINESH KUMAR PALIWAL) JUDGE Amitabh Digitally signed by ANUPRIYA SHARMA CHOUBEY Date: 2022.04.20 15:27:15 +05'30'